SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus claim of exemption on penny stock.” 7. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT directed the Ld. AO to redecide the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 29.12.2017. He also directed the Ld. AO to recompute income tax and interest payable as per provisions of section 115BBE

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

u/s 271 (1)( c) in respect of additional -p le offered by assessee if the explanation offered by assessee for not including such amount in the return is not found acceptable.Commissioner of Income tax v. D.K.B. & Co. [20021 (Ker)-243/6l8. The assessee agreed to certain additions proposed to be made by the AO towards bogus hundi credits

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd H84 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271

SANDEEP AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,62,26,036/- vide assessment order dated 28/03/2013. A penalty order came to be passed u/s 271

SANDEEP AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal No

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

bogus purchase of Rs. 1,62,26,036/- vide assessment order dated 28/03/2013. A penalty order came to be passed u/s 271

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

u/s 271 (1 )(c) was neither criminal nor quasi criminal in nature. It was a civil liability and therefore, presence of mens rea was not essential. 5.6 Reference can be made to the case of CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd. 226 CTR 105 (Del), Where the jurisdictional High Court held that "Even if there is no concealment of income

PBG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpbg International Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-19(1), C.R. Building, Cb-4B, Dda Flats, Vs. Delhi-110002. Munirka, Delhi-110067. Pan-Aabcp8752E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Goyal, Ca Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By 20.01.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income On 14.10.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,670/- Along With Computation Of Income, Auditors' Report & Audited Accounts Of The Assessee. Ld. Ao On Basis Of Incriminating & Tangible Information & After Following Due Process, Re-Opened Pbg International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. It is submitted that above grounds of appeal are legal grounds and in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd (229 ITR 383-SC) the assessee may be allowed to raise these grounds of appeal before the Hon'ble Bench

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

bogus long term capital gain and commission thereon respectively. The Assessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings. Thereafter the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2018 imposed penalty of Rs. 9,02,488/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

u/s 271(1)(c)........... A technical default for which provisions of sec. 271(1)(a) may be attracted cannot be made a basis for penalty us 271(1)(c). 6) All Case laws referred by Ld. AO in support of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) are irrelevant to the case of the Assesse: I pray to your

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

penalty of Rs.1,79,05,055/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. Brief facts of the case:- The assessee e-filed its return of income for AY 16-17 on 13.10.2016, declaring a total loss of Rs.3,95,34,835/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice u/s

VIVAAN INFOTEL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

purchases so made makes it a case, fit to be called as concealment of income, thereby making it eligible for the levy of penalty under Sec 271(1)(c). 5.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others 306 ITR 277 has held that the 'mens rea' need

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHADDA INTERNATIONAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

bogus unsecured loans and sales were being routed in benami concerns. Assessee in response responded that these are genuine transactions of the purchases which have been then sold to customers on which assessee has paid the tax. Further, it was submitted that all the payments made against these purchases were through account payee cheques which were duly reflected

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHADDA INTERNATIONAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

bogus unsecured loans and sales were being routed in benami concerns. Assessee in response responded that these are genuine transactions of the purchases which have been then sold to customers on which assessee has paid the tax. Further, it was submitted that all the payments made against these purchases were through account payee cheques which were duly reflected

M/S DHADDA INTERNATIONAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

bogus unsecured loans and sales were being routed in benami concerns. Assessee in response responded that these are genuine transactions of the purchases which have been then sold to customers on which assessee has paid the tax. Further, it was submitted that all the payments made against these purchases were through account payee cheques which were duly reflected

M/S DHADDA INTERNATIONAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

bogus unsecured loans and sales were being routed in benami concerns. Assessee in response responded that these are genuine transactions of the purchases which have been then sold to customers on which assessee has paid the tax. Further, it was submitted that all the payments made against these purchases were through account payee cheques which were duly reflected

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

penalty or\nlaunching of prosecution. Further such actions show\nthe department as a whole and officers concerned in\npoor light.\nI am further directed to invite your attention to the\nInstructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to\ntime, as referred above, through which the Board has\nemphasized upon the need to focus on gathering\nevidences during search/survey and to strictly

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

penalty or\nlaunching of prosecution. Further such actions show\nthe department as a whole and officers concerned in\npoor light.\nI am further directed to invite your attention to the\nInstructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to\ntime, as referred above, through which the Board has\nemphasized upon the need to focus on gathering\nevidences during search/survey and to strictly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

penalty or\nlaunching of prosecution. Further such actions show\nthe department as a whole and officers concerned in\npoor light.\nI am further directed to invite your attention to the\nInstructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to\ntime, as referred above, through which the Board has\nemphasized upon the need to focus on gathering\nevidences during search/survey and to strictly